> If Cisco sold at the multiples of its competitors, investors would be
> shocked. If the market valued $1 of Cisco's earnings the way it values
> $1 of Nortel's earnings, at a multiple of 100, Cisco stock would be
> selling for $35 a share. If it could command Lucent's multiple of 46,
> Cisco's share price would be around $16.

So it's OK that Nortel has a multiple twice that of Lucent's, but somehow
suspicious that Cisco has a multiple twice that of Nortel's? I don't follow
the reasoning here.

One would think that whatever makes Nortel worth twice as high a multiple as
Lucent (better execution? better prospects? better market position?) could
also work as an explanation for what makes Cisco worth twice as high a
multiple as Nortel.